I do not disagree with this interpretation of Doug's mail, but still would agree with Chuck's conclusion. There is much to choose from, it is all good.
What i really question is this 'disposable' thing. I would much rather have my landfill with steel frames than the current polyester resin impregnated material, I believe the steel will degrade much quicker. Do
you really think that these new lightweights are destined for a limited longevity? I am sure that the complication of the mechanisms make for fussier upkeep, but with good lubrication and proper riding style i see no reason that they should not last quite a long time. And what about the aluminum and titanium? Steel seems to be the most degradable and 'disposable'.
I love steel because i like the sense of handwork and the shifting of the work between the hand and machine, and where those boundaries are in
constant flux. This differs from builder to builder (manufacturer). I like the idea of craftsmanship and where human decision making is in the
particular object beyond the process, though the process and the approaches to process (in the production mode) are interesting as well.
But most of all, i love riding, i love to see others riding on anything made of any material. The more the better, the most diversity the best.
this adds to the uniqueness of the individual bicycle, and that is
what makes it all good!
>
> So while steel, lugged bikes may still be produced by a "growing
> list" of builders, they are not reclaiming a place at the front of
> the pack or the mass market, but rather carving a small niche,
> appealing to those who enjoy custom built bikes that have character,
> and not Taiwanese-built disposable bikes...which, in the short term
> at least, are "faster!"
>
> At least that's how I interpreted Doug's email....
--
gabriel l romeu
in a rainy unriding day trying to get the CNC running properly in
chesterfield ne jersey usa
± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±